September 28, 2010 - 3:44pm
Jury in Wendt case finds him guilty on all 11 counts
UPDATED at 5:04 p.m.
Ronald J. Wendt II, 25, of Alexander, is guilty of DWI and aggravated vehicular homicide in the death of 18-year-old Katie Stanley on Aug. 14, 2009, a Genesee County jury concluded today.
The jury also convicted Wendt of the nine other counts against him, including vehicular manslaughter, 2nd, which carries a possible 25-year prison term.
The jury deliberated less than two hours after hearing more than four days of testimony in which defense attorney Thomas Burns tried to establish that Wendt wasn't legally intoxicated at the time of the accident and that the actions of the driver of the other car, Rachel Enderle, 27, of Dansville, contributed to the accident.
"I don't want to get into anything about the case other than to say I'm disappointed in the verdict," Burns said. "That's about all I have to say."
While the speed of the verdict surprised Burns, District Attorney Lawrence Friedman said the quick decision shows the people had a solid case on all charges against Wendt.
"I'm very pleased for Katie's family and the other victims of the crash," Friedman said. "Justice was served."
In the hours before the accident, Wendt worked with a friend baling hay in Attica. Toward the end of the workday, they began drinking beer. According to William D. Marchisin, 35, of Darien, Wendt and he each had as many as six beers prior to the accident, including one about 15 minutes beforehand.
The duo was going to stop off at My Saloon for "just one more" when Wendt decided to make a left-hand turn off Route 20 right in front of Enderle's oncoming car.
Stanley, also of Dansville, was riding in the right rear passenger seat.
Friedman acknowledged that people drink and drive in Genesee County every day and they rarely wind up involved in a fatal car accident.
"Obviously, the vast majority believe nothing like this happens, but that's the reason we have these laws," Friedman said. "I'm sure this defendant never expected anything like this could ever happen to him, but that's what the problem is, you never know. Anybody who is driving while intoxicated could find themselves in this situation."
Sentencing is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., Nov. 15. Friedman said he hasn't even started to think about a sentencing recommendation.
Burns said there will be an appeal, but as is his policy, he won't represent Wendt in the appeal.
Photo: File photo of Ron Wendt.
Recommend
Tweet
Pin it
September 28, 2010 - 4:03pm
#1
This is really upsetting. I love how celebrities get away with EVERYTHING yet this young man (who i feel his lawyers had a GREAT case for him) has to pay the price, i hope he doesnt have to do the full 25 years. Give him house arrest for a few years and let him be. Whatever happened with his passenger lying under oath? thats a federal offence isnt it? Why is he not being charged for that? In past posts on here it sounds like there is something shady going on here not only that but i feel the other driver involved should have charges against them too. Where are citations? Where is justice in all of that? why is only ONE person paying the price when others were involved as well. This jury sucked..
September 28, 2010 - 4:20pm
#2
I agree Bob.
September 28, 2010 - 4:28pm
#3
Oh my goodness.. truly upsetting. I know Ron, went to school with him. He is a good guy. And i know he's been beating himself ragged about that poor girl dying.. I pray they are lenient on him, the justice system is so twisted and bendable, please restore some of my faith in it... Oh how this turns my stomach.. Let's allow a girl who molested a little boy go because she blamed it on the child... Or a father who punched his son in the face go because no one saw him do it, only saw the black eye.... But possibly send him up for 25 yrs.. I can't believe batavia..
September 28, 2010 - 5:34pm
#4
Since this has been updated i feel the need to expess my OPINION. What kind of friend is this William D. Martchisin for letting his friend drive in the first place if Ron was supposedly over the limit? Friends don't let friends drink and drive. Was it that Ron wanted to have one more drink or a hey give me a ride so i can go have another drink? I have seen the named "passenger" in many bars and i know this man can throw them back like water and is always wanting more. Anyway i look at it i do not just seen Ronald as the only person who played a role in this accident. There are so many unanswered questions in this case which is why i find it so hard the jury came to this desicion so fast. It was like they were stuck in the box rather than looking outside of it.
September 28, 2010 - 5:59pm
#5
I agree, Bob. These facts do not add up. If someone (driver) had a serious accident, what kind of friend (passenger) would leave the scene? Not only leave the scene of the accident (which I think everyone knows is wrong) but to leave their FRIEND!? Then, why would Ron go right up to the police officer and say it's me you're looking for... I mean, duh. They would eventually know who they are looking for unless you are not the one they are looking for and are pretending you are.
September 28, 2010 - 6:09pm
#6
That is a good point as well. Who flees a crime scene when there are several witnesses and your face/name are well known around this town. For one you look even more guilty, for two your so called "friend" is left behind to go down in flames when they may have not of even been the one who started the fire..... so to speak lol. I understand people panic but you only panic for so long, once the adrenaline wears off and you come back to reality there is no excuse...so when a young girl dies does that make it okay to lie? or when a young girl dies you testify you thought the scene was "secure" enough to leave? What gives you the right to say any crime scene is secure? The lies just keep coming on William's part.
September 28, 2010 - 6:23pm
#7
Maybe the judge is more intelligent than what I have come to expect from judges. Is he elected? Is this an election year? I hope not.
September 28, 2010 - 6:35pm
#8
I just went back a few articles and found that it is Judge Noonan. I trust his judgement from past cases reported here. He seems fair and this case appears much less so, I hope I'm right. "Drive defensively, the life you save may be your own." It seemed like a corny slogan at the time but it saved my ass a dozen times in forty years.
September 28, 2010 - 6:44pm
#9
Keep in mind, none of us were sitting in the jury box. None of us heard all of the evidence.
As thoroughly as we reported the story, we're still compressing to keep stories from being tedious and overly long. There are things that get left out. I hope we've had the good judgment not to leave out anything critical, but that doesn't mean something stood out to the jury that didn't stand out to us.
September 28, 2010 - 7:04pm
#10
The two worst jobs in the world, judge and jury.
September 28, 2010 - 8:07pm
#11
September 28, 2010 - 9:25pm
#12
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, if Miss. Stanley would have been wearing her seat belt, it's very likely she'd still be alive.
September 28, 2010 - 9:28pm
#13
There are a lot of "only ifs" in this case. I imagine that's the case in many tragic accidents.
September 28, 2010 - 9:33pm
#14
Seat belts save lives Howard.
September 28, 2010 - 9:46pm
#15
Two lives wasted for one dumb split second decision, whether high or sober. But high means prison if a jury thinks you were, even if you were not. That's called justice under the rules of the American Taliban. I always thought of it as revenge. But I'm a damn liberal who should never be a judge, or on a jury. I think everyone is innocent, unless you prove otherwise, because they are.
September 28, 2010 - 9:56pm
#16
Howard,I sent you a seat belt movie clip I'd like you to post. Thanks.
September 29, 2010 - 1:03am
#17
wow, 25 years for an accident? why wouldn't the lawyer grill the passenger more on his different stories, especially with rumor of him being the driver of the truck.
September 29, 2010 - 1:14am
#18
Unless you were there there will always be unanswered questions. I know in my heart what happened. And even though I am sad that this whole incident happened. You must understand we all make decisions(hundreds a day) that can alter our lives forever. I think about Katie Stanley and her family and the fragility of life every day. I know this happened in a horribly tragic manor but we all need to realize that every decision we make, we live with the consequences, whether good or bad. I was the passenger in the car who struck Wendt and I seen and remember every second. And to the speed assumptions... I know my cousin Rachel is a very intelligent and defensive driver, and she lives everyday of her life knowing that a beautiful young girl lost her life while she was in control. But knowing the reason for this was NOT her, and not her driving skills but rather someone who decided they would pull in front of on coming traffic because they "thought they had enough time". And now knowing decisions while impaired are most of the time wrong. Everybody in this situation wishes it never happened, but this is why we all need to realize we can never be cautious enough while driving on the road. Because all to often incidents such as this one happen. I pray for Ronald and his family can learn and grow through this tough time and my heart will always be with the Stanley's and their amazing support and their beautiful daughter that is now watching over all of us.
September 29, 2010 - 2:27am
#19
WOW!! I can't believe he's been found guilty of all 11 counts.
I'm so confused, and perhaps someone can help me to understand; but wasn't he exactly the legal limit?
How then did they come to arrest him for DWI? Perhaps I've missed something? 0.8 = one drink = legal limit?
I'm very sorry for the loss of such a young life, and am sure that this will haunt everyone forever; however, is it really fair for an equally young life to be ruined (possible 25 years??!!!!!!!) for a stupid mistake??! Perhaps he was tired? Perhaps he did think he had enough time? Whatever the case, how sad it all is; he still doesn't deserve 25 years behind bars!
(Unless of course he WAS indeed completely intoxicated, which IS a very stupid and selfish mistake- which he should be punished for! BUT- this doesn't appear to be the case as he was only 0.8?!!)
And yes! Perhaps I would feel differently if it were my daughter who was killed, but all of the comments on here reassure me that I am not being unreasonable!
The Honourable Judge Noonan has indeed been seemingly fair and just in all past articles that I too have read; one can only hope and expect that Mr. Wendt won't be made an example of in such a high profile case.
Tim - I'm so sorry that you and your loved ones are going through this. You make a lot of good points - I commend you for your honesty and for your strength!
September 29, 2010 - 3:54am
#20
@ Sarah Thank you. And though I have no say in the sentencing. I do believe the Judge will be fair with his decision. He has seen thousands of these cases and will be very thorough and just in this one as well, that I am sure of. Everyone involved will live the rest of our lives with that night replaying. And I can only hope this brings closure to the families who have struggled throughout this past 13 months and counting. I will always have scars and a very debilitating hip injury that will forever remind me of this. But that is nothing compared to the loss the Stanley's have faced. I have faith that everything will be done in a very fair and just manor from here on out.
September 29, 2010 - 6:50am
#21
George,
You said, "under the rules of the American Taliban". Are you comparing us to them?
September 29, 2010 - 8:44am
#22
Tim, thanks for commenting. It's good to get your perspective.
September 29, 2010 - 9:59am
#23
John, I'm saying the Christian radical religious right is hellbent on revenge and imposing their definition of morality on all of America. I think the similarities between them and the Taliban are glaring.
September 29, 2010 - 10:27am
#24
George,
And how does that relate to the conviction? Are you comparing a conviction for DWI and homicide to, "imposing their morality"?
September 29, 2010 - 10:35am
#25
George, I can relate to your opinion, but a jury of his "peers" handed down the verdict.John, I don't believe George was talking about the conviction, but instead the laws and interpretations of law that brought about the charges against Mr.Wendt.
Howard, was Mr.Wendt's attorney assigned counsel, or retained counsel?
September 29, 2010 - 11:18am
#26
So for all of you who feel Wendt shouldnt go to jail, answer this, what kind of country would we live in if everyone went around driving with a BAC level of .08 or higher and killed someone. Its been proven that Wendt was intoxicated and crossed over into the Enderle vehicle. Yes, Katie may be alive today if she had her seatbelt on, but at the time of the accident, she was 18 and a BACK seat passanger. There is not law saying she has to wear her seatbelt, so bringing the "what ifs" in are pointless. I could easily say what if Wendt hadnt drank beer, would he have been able to tell how close the oncoming car was? All of you pity Wendt when the evidence has been showen, he clearly was intoxicated and caused this crash. He deserves the punishment that comes. The judge, along with the jury has been nothing but fair.
September 29, 2010 - 11:21am
#27
Frank, Mr. Burns was retained.
September 29, 2010 - 11:27am
#28
correct me if im wrong but didnt the driver of the car say she was speeding because she didnt know the limit changed. so in my opinion both drivers were at fault. maybe wednt shoudnt have made that turn and maybe rachel should have paid more attention to the speed limit
September 29, 2010 - 11:30am
#29
Stacey,
In my mind it was not proven that he was driving with that high of a BAC and besides that just a few years ago it was .1 and if this would have happened then it wouldn't be an issue.
September 29, 2010 - 11:46am
#30
Jason, when alcohol is present, the driver who is under the influence will be charged, thats the way the law is set up. The legal arguement will always be; could this accident have been avoided if there were no alcohol involved? That question can not be answered because alcohol was involved. I realize many feel this is unfair,
but if you think of it in terms of split second decision making, it makes the law seem reasonable.
This type of tradgedy can remind all of us, there is no safe amount of alcohol one can consume, and then decide to get behind the wheel, drink all you want, just don't put yourself in this position, you may not be able to live with the results.
September 29, 2010 - 11:49am
#31
Peter,
True, a few years ago he would not have been charged with DWI, and would have been charged with driving while impaired. But he would still have been charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter, and that is the really important charge.
While not everyone might like it, the only opinion that really counted was the jury's.
September 29, 2010 - 11:52am
#32
i understand the alcohol issue but lets say she was doing the speed limit. its safe to assume that she would not of been in the spot she was when wendt made that turn he would of had plenty of time and none of this would of happened
September 29, 2010 - 12:01pm
#33
Why is there so much of an issue here? He was drinking and driving and killed someone! He should rot in jail. Or maybe someone should kill his daughter and see if he would want that person to walk free. I don't think he will get 25 years and nor should he, but to say he doesn't deserve jail time is insane.
September 29, 2010 - 12:08pm
#34
his werent the only actions that caused her death. his, the driver and even her own decision to not wear a seat belt all led to her death
September 29, 2010 - 12:15pm
#35
Jeffery Lonnen- Thank you! I could not agree with you more.
Peter O'Brien- You are entitled to your own opinion on what was proven and what wasn't. I feel no need to go against the NYS Sherrifs and doubt how well of a job they did. And as far of the law being a .1 a year ago, that doesnt mean anything anymore. It was changed for a reason. The law is now .08 so there is no reason to think of what it used to be.
As far as Rachels speed, it is not exact on how fast she was going. There has been a range from 46pmh-55mph. Theyve proven that to the eye Wendt had a view of her vehicle for quit some distance, and yet he was in too much of a hurry to stop and wait. If i were driving down the road, i cant know the speed that someone is approaching me but i am fully capiable of being able to tell if i have enough time to make the turn. For some reason Wendt was unable to do so. And after the jury heard all the facts and opinions, they came upon the decision that he was found guilty of all 11 counts. I believe this was a fair trial.
September 29, 2010 - 12:21pm
#36
Early on I realized there was more to this story than the simple story line of "drunken driver kills young woman."
It would have been easy to look at this issue that way and just let the story go.
There were numerous factors to consider in this case, which is why I think it was good it went to jury trial.
But having sat through much of the trial, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that Ron drank some, that his judgment was impaired because of it, that he tried to make a turn he should not have tried to make, and a person died as a result. None of the other links in the chain matter as much.
Not forgetting Katie and her family and friends, it's hard not to have some sympathy for Ron. He's still a young guy from a good family whom I'm sure would not have wanted to be involved in this at all.
He did, frankly, what a lot of young guys his age do all the time -- work, have a few beers, stop off for a night cap.
But I think this quote from Mr. Friedman is a good one to remember:
"Obviously, the vast majority believe nothing like this happens, but that's the reason we have these laws," Friedman said. "I'm sure this defendant never expected anything like this could ever happen to him, but that's what the problem is, you never know. Anybody who is driving while intoxicated could find themselves in this situation."
September 29, 2010 - 12:22pm
#37
stacey it was her own words that said she was speeding because she wasnt paying attention to the speed limit change. now im not sure on this road but when there is a reduction in speed their is sometimes a sign that says reduce speed ahead and there is also the speed limit sign. what had her so distracted that she didnt see the speed limit sign
September 29, 2010 - 12:24pm
#38
Drink effects your eye sight and your reaction time balling hay all day in the sun and drinking gets you drunk quicker. Ever sit in a hot tub an drink in the hot water when u get out after an hour and 2 drinks your wasted. in the hot sun its the same effect. This man knew he shouldnt have drove his reaction time was effected as was his eye sight and his perception of distance. He took his chance and look what it got him. This should not be justified for him. He made his choices. It is not right to drink in drive ever not after any number of drinks.
September 29, 2010 - 12:24pm
#39
As far as his actions are concerned its the drinking that i have a problem with. He made the turn right in front of her. If she was speeding yah that is wrong but that has nothing to do with the fact that he was drunk and turned right in font of the her! HIS FAULT. Speed, no seat belt have nothing to do with what caused the accident! And the accident caused her death. So there for he killed her not the not seat belt or speed!
September 29, 2010 - 12:29pm
#40
Are you comparing a conviction for DWI and homicide to, "imposing their morality"?
Yes, John I am. An eye for an eye? Should he get the death penalty? I'm sure many people think he should. Revenge is not justice.
If he were just a crappy reckless driver, as so many people are, there would have been no punishment. The imposing morality part comes in when a jury is ready to hang him high for drinking a beer. Thanks M.A.D.D. you truly are mad (as in insane.) Just my opinion.
September 29, 2010 - 12:45pm
#41
as some one who lost both parents to a drunk driver, I feel the heart break of the family. Your heart hurts as if it was broke in two must be where the says comes from. You have to ask your self do you believe in fate - one second one way or the other, or god needed this young woman with him. I disliked god for along time. Or everyday people make mistakes. Young people today want everything now, instant gratification, want the phone call or text meg, want that beer right now, want to be home right now. After you lean to live with the hurt, you start to think what good would it do to put away a young man for years, he has to live with what happened just like you. The young man who hit my parents complete a shock camp and as far as I know lives a decent life. Hurting this man to make you feel better will never change what happened.
September 29, 2010 - 12:45pm
#42
Laura, maybe you're wasted after two drinks in the hottub... not everyone
Stacey,
Its not exact how much alcohol was in his system at the time of the accident either. Why is her speed ok to be in a range and not his BAC? A range that includes legal amounts of alcohol.
No one is saying it wasn't a fair trial.
"You are entitled to your own opinion on what was proven and what wasn't." Really? Thanks for validating that. I wasn't sure I had a right to my opinion.
September 29, 2010 - 1:07pm
#43
If we are truly throwing out theoretical. We have to blame the old owners of the "Broken Prop" . If they had not sold it to someone that wanted people to come to their bar Mr. Wednt would have never been near it.
September 29, 2010 - 1:09pm
#44
Peter it takes ten times more than 2 drinks I have a high tolerance I grew up in a family full of drunks. My point is it intensifies the way it effects you.
September 29, 2010 - 1:12pm
#45
George,
You totally miss the main point. If it was just a DWI, we would not be this interested.
He was convicted of killing somebody, that's the main issue. Somebody is dead.
Do you think he should just be scolded for causing her death. What do you think is a "moral" punishment?
September 29, 2010 - 1:26pm
#46
speed is a deffinite issue in the accident. speed effects the force of impact. force= mass*velocity. fatal g forces for the average female is death above 65 g's. now a 145lbs female in a car going at 55 would have a force of impact of 7.34 tons which is equivalent to 91.75 g's, same female going 40mph would have a force of impact of 3.88 tons which is equivalent to 48.5 g's. oh yeah and these figures are without a seatbelt. so if rachel was going the proper speed and was still at the same spot when wendt turned the passenger and a much greater chance of survival. and if she was wearing her seatbelt you can reduce those figures by 80%. so 55mph = 18.35g and 40mph = 9.7g. both easily survivable. so jeff yes both the speed and the seatbelt are an issue in the accident
September 29, 2010 - 1:32pm
#47
Jason - My point is all math aside. If he would not have turned infront of them then she wouldnt be dead! End of point.
September 29, 2010 - 1:37pm
#48
You know what let the guy go free! And i hope next time its your daughter not wearing her seat belt in the back seat dead. I bet you will have a different opinion then.
September 29, 2010 - 1:37pm
#49
and if she went the speed limit she would not of been there when he turned then she would not be dead, end of point
September 29, 2010 - 1:40pm
#50
well jeffery i follow the speed limits and teach my children to wear there seatbelts so if something like this did happen i knew i did everything in my power to protect my family and the peoples lives i have taken responsibility over by driving them. i dont take my car out of park till everybody is buckled. if they dont like it they dont drive with me
Recent comments